Five

The Fall

by Kevin W. Graham

The Restored Gospel has shed a tremendous amount of light on the understanding of the fall of Adam. It was one of those doctrines that, when I first encountered it, caused a light to go on inside my head as if it was something I had always known. I find the doctrine behind the fall of Adam utterly fascinating, and I hope to be able to share the proper understanding of the fall, in accordance with LDS thought and teaching. McKeever and Johnson, however accurate they may be in presenting LDS quotations, do not draw the proper conclusions from them. This review will attempt to correct the common misunderstanding of the LDS doctrine on the fall, and perhaps add further insight regarding its biblical and logical roots.

Are Mormons Falling Upwards?

Are Mormons grateful for the fall of Adam? If I had to entertain this idea, I would say that perhaps I am grateful for Adam's transgression in the same respect that I would be grateful for Judas who decided to betray the Lord, thus, fulfilling prophecy. Simply put, Adam and Eve did as God planned by disobeying Him. Or, perhaps my gratitude for the fall of Adam is comparable with my gratitude for the Romans who made the Atonement of Christ possible by killing Him. This doesn't invoke much confidence in our critics' insinuation that Mormons are "grateful." However, because God's plan went as designed, I suppose I am thankful that Adam and Eve did exactly what God wanted them to do. Our critics have agreed that the Atonement was a necessity, and they also insist that it took place on the cross-as argued in Chapter 9-so one could easily reverse this argument by saying that Evangelicals are grateful for the Romans and perhaps even grateful for the Jews who chose to condemn Jesus instead of Barabbas. But what purpose would such an argument serve, aside from bad-mouthing the Jews? Likewise, this is the only purpose for the arguments presented in Chapter 5. If none of these events had happened, Christ could not have atoned for our sins, according to our critics. Therefore, sin and evil became a necessity before the greatest work of the Lord could take place. This is the absurd concept, "gratitude for evil," that they are trying to project into LDS thought, along with the notion that in Mormon soteriology,¹ Adam's disobedience was on par with the work of Christ.

When one considers the Orthodox and historical view of the fall-involving a universal resentment for Adam's transgression-one might be shocked to learn that some Mormons have indeed expressed gratitude for the fall. Such expressions, for the most part, are given in tribute to God's perfect plan that is still in progress. This plan, according to LDS teaching, included the fall of Adam. But according to LDS theology, since God is all knowing, everything that occurs in this world, which directly pertains to man's eternal destination, is part of God's plan. It is God who is glorified in these expressions, not Adam or Eve. McKeever and Johnson are not at all interested in explaining the reasoning behind this LDS doctrine. Yet, like most of our critics, they are quick to take advantage of this potential knee-jerk reaction when they suggest a Mormon doctrine of a "falling upwards."²

Personally, I have never heard the fall referred to as an "upward fall", but without supporting references, our critics are quick to assert that "some Mormons" believe that's exactly what it was. The only reference I could find for the phrase "fall upwards" was from B.H. Roberts who expressed exactly the opposite of what our authors are trying to impose on LDS doctrine:

Sin, then, is not a means to good. It is not 'good in the making.' The fall is not a 'fall upward.' Every yielding to temptation is a hindrance, not a help, to moral development; but every temptation offers what, rightly employed, is an indispensable means of moral development. For all moral development is through temptation to virtue.³

To their credit, our critics do a good job at the beginning of this chapter when they present the LDS position on the fall. However, they unnecessarily stack the deck with selected quotations (one prophet, four apostles, one BYU professor and one LDS scripture), and they could have elaborated further on why the LDS believe the way we do, instead of trying to make it appear black and white when compared to their particular view of Christian thought. In Chapter 5 they did not abuse their sources as they have in other chapters. Having said that, I was left dumbfounded when immediately after these quotes were presented, our authors hit us with the statement:

Contrary to the LDS concept of the fall, the Bible shows that this event was the result of disobeying God.⁴

After providing six references, for whatever reason they still couldn't grasp the LDS position accurately. Nowhere in any of the citations was it suggested that the fall was caused by anything other than disobedience. No Mormon source will deny the fact that Adam and Eve blatantly disobeyed God when they partook of the fruit, hence, the straw man arguments began. The Book of Mormon clearly agrees with this premise in Alma 42:12:

And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience.

The focus in LDS commentary deals with the necessity of the fall as opposed to its cause. Therefore, there is nothing in these quotations that could be considered "contrary" to the Orthodox position that the fall resulted from disobedience. It seems perfectly clear that our differences lie in the fact that we believe God expected and even wanted them to transgress because it was a necessity, whereas the traditional idea is that Adam botched God's intended plan.

Our critics never entertain the idea of what would have happened if Adam and Eve had never partaken of the fruit. What would have been the ramifications thereof? God did not want them to disobey because He likes disobedience, but rather, because it is part of His plan. Our critics cannot fault us with this logic anymore than they can fault their own logic when trying to explain away the fact that God allows sin altogether. If God is the truly omnipotent God that Christianity teaches, then why didn't He kill sin on day one, by making its existence impossible? The answer to this question lies at the heart of the matter in solving the same dilemma that McKeever and Johnson are trying to recreate in Chapter 5.

As Elder Roberts previously indicated, temptation offers a means for moral development. Through our trials and afflictions in this life we grow stronger spiritually. In this way Mormonism harmonizes good and evil in this life, and clearly defines their necessity as well as the nature of their reliance upon one another. We must learn to put our faith in God and rely on Him, even when things appear to be at their worst. For this reason sin, temptation and evil are all necessities in God's plan, but it doesn't logically follow that God must approve when we commit sin. It is however, an unmistakable fact that God allowed sin and Satan in His plan for a purpose. The story of Job epitomizes this divine truth. God used Satan for His own purposes in the Garden of Eden just as He used him to tempt and strengthen Job. In this way, temptations can be viewed as blessings from God because they strengthen us. The apostle Peter seemed to understand this truth when he said our temptations on Earth were worth more than gold:

Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.⁵

Make no mistake about it. God didn't like the idea of His Son crucified, however, it was an essential part of His plan. Mormons believe God's plan was perfect because we believe God is perfect and He knows everything. That is what it all boils down to in the end. I don't think it is reasonable for us to assume that an all-knowing Being would put forth a plan that would fail on day one. What sort of perfection or omniscience would this reflect? Obviously, God knew the fall was going to happen, but it couldn't have happened unless He set the stage for the inevitable. Could this be why He placed a forbidden, yet irresistible and glorious tree in the midst of the Garden? Could this be why God sent the prince of lies down in the Garden and allowed him to tempt them? Could this be why He made Adam and Eve ignorant of good and evil first, so they would have no choice but to fall into deception? Could this be why God gave them such knowledge by simply partaking of the fruit, so they could learn from what they had done, only after the transgression? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding yes. Satan's job in the garden was like taking candy from a baby, and God allowed him on Earth for this exact purpose.

The only logical alternative our critics can offer is for Adam and Eve to have remained in ignorant bliss and live forever, alone in the Garden. More importantly, they would not be in the presence of God, according to orthodoxy. Mormons believe that the goal of God's plan is to return His children to heaven so that they can live with God. This would be impossible if Adam and Eve were to stay on Earth forever as obedient "robots" that would never know the difference between good and evil. So now we must ask ourselves if God's plan involved returning His children to Him, and whether man has the power to overthrow God's perfect plan. We must also ask ourselves if an endless life on Earth is more appealing than living with Heavenly Father? If man were so weak and evil as classical theists suggest, is it then reasonable to assign to them the power to destroy God's original plan? These are concerns that surface from the common traditional position, but rarely are they addressed, and never have I seen them resolved. Critics like McKeever and Johnson insist on manufacturing or dwelling on "problems" from what they offer as the LDS perspective, but they fail to deal with the problems that arise from their own position.

Commandment of Procreation

Latter-day Saints also believe that if Adam and Eve had never partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, then they would have remained unable to procreate, thus obeying the commandment previously given.⁶ This doctrine is detailed further in the Book of Mormon:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things, which were created, must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.⁷

Thus, further populating the planet would have been impossible. Although this doctrine is not explicit from the biblical text, there is reasonable cause to follow this train of thought. First of all, the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve didn't even know what it meant to be nude. Therefore, it would logically follow that they did not understand the process of procreation either. Furthermore, the connection between the transgression and sexual knowledge is attested by Tatian, an early Christian apologist, who according to Elaine Pagels,

Pointed out that after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they became sexually aware: 'Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.' Other interpreters agreed that the accuracy of this interpretation is proved in Gen 4:1, where the Hebrew verb 'to know' (yada) connotes sexual intercourse: 'Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and bore a son.⁸

Adam and Eve received the command to multiply and replenish the earth without knowing the means. Although Latter-day Saints can accredit their knowledge of this doctrine through benefit of modern revelation, this interpretation of Genesis is not unique to Mormons. In fact, Clement of Alexandria taught that it was God who led Adam and Eve, "like the irrational animals to procreate."⁹ Clement also blamed Adam's sin on his desire to acquire the fruits of marriage (multiply his seed).¹⁰ Hence, Adam was at a crossroads. He was commanded to procreate while also being commanded to stay away from learning the means. God set the scene where Adam had no choice but to transgress. Whatever Adam chose to do, sin would enter into the world, and the fall would have taken place either way. With this understanding in mind we can see that it is God who is in control. Mankind could not have thwarted God's plan because God did not allow for that possibility.

Fulfilling Predestination of Christ's Atonement

There is yet another important reason to accept the LDS doctrine of the fall. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God to rescue fallen mankind was not an unfortunate backup plan, but was a key part of God's perfect plan from the beginning. Thus, the New Testament speaks of Christ as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,"¹¹ so this was clearly God's plan from the beginning. Hence, if Adam and Eve had remained obedient, they would have made God a liar, because without the fall, there would be no need for Jesus Christ to be slain before the fall ever took place. Just as mortal parents recognize that it is best for infants to grow up and become accountable, hopefully choosing obedience and goodness, so God's purposes called for us to gain knowledge of good and evil, face opposition, make choices to follow Him, and receive of His grace. As Brigham Young explained, "The Lord knew they would do this and he had designed that they should."¹² Our authors continue by asking, "If transgression was a positive and it was a blessing to leave Eden, why does Gen 3:24 say that God had to drive them out?"¹³

The answer to that question is found in verse 22. Had He not driven them out then they would have taken the fruit again and lived forever: "and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.'' So had they stayed, God would have been made a liar since He said they were sentenced to die!

According to Second Temple Jewish literature, God denied Adam's request to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life for this very reason:

You shall not now take from it; for it was appointed to the Cherubim and the flaming sword which turns to guard it because of you, that you might not taste of it and be immortal forever.¹⁴

The Tree of Life has been taken away from the earth-now located in Paradise-and is offered only to those who overcome in this life.¹⁵ There is punishment for every transgression, and this they found out only after they were capable of understanding it (after their "eyes were opened").

The Father Teaches His Children

There is no evidence from the Genesis account that God was completely wroth by the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Our critics might prefer to view their punishment as something God didn't initially plan on doing, but the Bible does not support this assumption and it's acceptance throws the concept of God's omniscience out the window. Adam and Eve were "babes," to say the least. God was acting as a Father who was teaching His children the consequences of disobedience. They suffered death because of their actions, but for us, it opened the opportunity to come to Earth and return to heaven. God knew of their disobedience immediately when it happened, but when He approached them, He acted as if He didn't know, and taught them about punishment vs. rewards. Hence, the learning process and progression of mankind began.

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Obviously this was a carefully planned learning process or else God would have cut to the chase and condemned Adam and Eve immediately when the crime was committed. Instead, God acted ignorant so they could learn from their responses to Him. As an earthly father might ask his disobedient child, "What is it that you have done," when he is actually very aware of what happened; Mikey got into the cookie jar again and needs to be chastised.

The Father of Lies

One major failing of Mormonism 101, among many, is that it does not even begin to respond to the common LDS rebuttals to these arguments. Instead, it moves on to more popular anti-Mormon quibbles that try to color Mormons as very trusting in what Satan has to tell us. McKeever and Johnson inform us:

Genesis 3:3-5 has been used by Mormons to support the idea that Adam and Eve made the right decision. Since the possibility of godhood is considered a Mormon truism, some have said that Satan was telling the truth when he told Eve in verse 5 that she "shall be as gods." However, is it wise to trust a promise from one who is called the 'Father of lies?'¹⁶

When or where this was ever "used by Mormons" the authors do not bother to inform us. Instead, they load up the next page with four reasons why we shouldn't trust Satan, all supported with biblical proof texts and commentary. I am sad to see them ignore the real LDS responses, and see them continue with this "some Mormons" say this and "some Mormons" say that rhetoric. First of all, I seriously doubt there is one Mormon on this planet who will disagree with their four points on Satan's deceptive character. I challenge them to produce one statement from an LDS source that disagrees with their little sermon on Satan's dishonesty.¹⁷

Notice also, how the subject has been conveniently changed so they can deal with the LDS doctrine of deification when the first issue hasn't been settled. Instead of this red herring,¹⁸ the real question which should be asked is whether Satan lied when he said they "shall be as gods." According to verse 22, Satan told the truth, but he lied when he told them that they "surely would not die." This is how Satan works. He mixes truth with lies-another "Mormon truism." LDS critics can say Satan's comment that they "shall be as gods" is a lie until they are blue in the face, but they will still have to deal with verse 22 which confirms this statement as truth. Satan is indeed referred to as the father of lies, but he is also called the prince of darkness. By that should we assume he only comes out at night? Satan is the father of lies because he mentioned the first lie in human existence, and he knows how to make his lies most effective, not because he is incapable of telling the truth.

"Ye shall be as Gods"

As far as human deification is concerned, Genesis 3:5 has absolutely nothing to do with godhood and I am unaware of any LDS apologist who has tried using this verse in support of human deification. The only people I know who bring up deification on this passage are anti-Mormons who are trying to weave into the scriptures any possible refutation of the idea of becoming like God.

The verse is referring to a quality of God that would be given to man. In this case, the knowledge of good and evil. If our authors had seen the looks on as many Christian faces as I have (a blank stare into the verse as their mouths drop open in silence) when they are shown verse 22, and witness their trap vanish into thin air, they probably wouldn't have been so quick to ignore this common LDS response. They should have better prepared their readers to deal with real Mormons, and not a puppeteer's straw arguments that have been rigged from the beginning. The fact that McKeever and Johnson have ignored so many opportunities to address real LDS responses doesn't invoke much confidence in their ability-or willingness for that matter-to understand LDS theology at all.

Anyway, I see no need in responding to the four-point characterization of Satan, because Mormons agree wholeheartedly that Satan is a liar. The only point they raised that I feel needs addressing is their citation of 1 Thessalonians 2:18 where they say, "Paul said that Satan hindered His work." Just to be clear, this particular verse has nothing to do with the fall of Adam, and nobody is saying that Satan doesn't try to hinder God's work. We simply recognize the fact that Satan is also God's tool and is at God's disposal.¹⁹ Satan knows the plan of God as well as anyone else, but he cannot help being a tool in God's hands. That is the beauty of God's plan. The only way Satan can succeed in his temptations is if we deny God and refuse to put our faith in Christ.

As far as glorifying Adam, I do not see this as a common trait in LDS thought. However, it should be noted that many Second Temple Jewish works glorified Adam to some extent. For example, in the wisdom writings he is on the list of Israelite "heroes."²⁰ He is also portrayed as a "just man"²¹ and a "priestly" Israelite.²² So if there really are "some Mormons" out there who think it is worth their time in praising Adam for anything he has done-which has not been established by our authors-we can see that they are in company with ancient Jews who understood the fall in similar terms.

Is All Transgression a Sin?

McKeever and Johnson, like many other critics, seem to have a problem with the LDS remaining consistent with the fall being referred to as a result of "transgression" as opposed to "sin." After quoting a few LDS leaders who refer to transgression as an entirely different act than sin, they hit us with 1 John 3:4 which states "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

This is all well and good, but the referenced scripture doesn't say all transgression is sin. It simply says that if someone sins, then it is a transgression of a law. Naturally, all sin is a transgression, but this doesn't necessarily mean all transgression is sin.²³

This is perfectly acceptable in LDS thought. James further distinguishes this concept when he said, "therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."²⁴ This tells us that sin is only a sin when the person is aware of goodness, yet denies it. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil (right or wrong) until after they partook of the fruit. So keeping in line with James' definition of sin, the LDS explanation fits perfectly.

The strongest case presented by McKeever and Johnson was Romans 5:12-15 which refers to Adam's "sin." They really wreck their argument when they quote verses 18-19 and say:

Notice the phrase in verse 19:"by one man's [Adam's] disobedience many were made sinners [not merely transgressors].

Latter-day Saints also agree that the fall caused sin to enter into the world so this part of their argument is moot. Everything after Adam's transgression was considered sin because mankind had known the difference between good and evil. They should have stuck with the first part that mentions the transgression as sin. What the LDS do recognize, however, is that the fall is referred to as a "transgression" almost all of the time in the Bible. In fact, the verse they presented from Paul is the only biblical instance where Adam's transgression is called a sin.

After James has shed some light on what constitutes "sin," we must ask ourselves if there is really any difference between "sin" and "transgression" and if Paul could have understood these terms interchangeably. Obviously he does, because in verse 14-which was skipped over by our authors-Paul says that it was Adam's "transgression." Also in Acts 1:25 Paul refers to Judas' obvious sin as "transgression." So it seems perfectly clear to me that Paul used the two terms interchangeably.

Does the Hebrew (Old Testament) usage of transgression blend well with James's definition and the LDS description? If there is absolutely no difference between the two, and they are actually their own definition for one another, then why are there so many scriptures in the Old Testament which refers to one's sins and then their transgressions? You'd think they would kill two birds with one stone by just saying one or the other. For example, Psalms 25:7 states "Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions," and Joshua 24:19 states "he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins"²⁵ Wouldn't the second phrase be automatically implied by the first, if our critic's strict definition stands true? Clearly it is plausible that they could stand for two different things. If they were interchangeable in the Hebrew, then why doesn't Genesis (or the entire Hebrew Old Testament for that matter) mention the transgression of Adam as "sin?" In fact, the first time the Bible mentioned sin was with Cain and not Adam or Eve;²⁶ the first biblically attested transgression after mankind knew the difference between good and evil. Again, this conforms perfectly well with James 4:17 and the LDS understanding of their lack of knowledge between good and evil.

This is just food for thought, but I really don't see the big issue with sin vs. transgression. Some LDS leaders have tried to make a distinction between sin and transgression, just as other biblical writers have done. I think the line between the two is so thin that one cannot help but overlap them at times. What I find interesting is that the great reformer, John Wesley, seemed to agree with the idea that all transgression is not sin when he divided them as voluntary and involuntary:

"You say, 'Yes, it is inconsistent with the last article: It cannot consist with salvation from sin.' I answer, It will perfectly well consist with salvation from sin, according to that definition of sin, (which I apprehend to be the scriptural definition of it,) a voluntary transgression of a known law. "Nay, but all transgressions of the law of God, whether voluntary or involuntary, are sin: For St. John says, `All sin is a transgression of the law.' True, but he does not say, All transgression of the law is sin. This I deny: Let him prove it that can. To say the truth, this a mere strife of words. You say none is saved from sin in your sense of the word; but I do not admit of that sense, because the word is never so taken in Scripture. And you cannot deny the possibility of being saved from sin, in my sense of the word. And this is the sense wherein the word sin is over and over taken in Scripture ²⁷... By sin I mean a voluntary transgression of a known law."²⁸

In any case, this issue is really of no consequence since I don't believe any LDS prophet has ever said Adam's transgression wasn't a sin "in any sense." In fact, that is exactly what their quote from Joseph Fielding Smith says: "This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin in the strict sense, for it was something Adam and Eve had to do."²⁹

Critics have responded to this explanation rather unsatisfied. Mainly because we believe God gave a commandment which He expected would be broken. Some LDS critics have problems with this, but I find it highly ironic since most of them seem to agree that mankind is inherently sinful, yet God commanded us to obey him and be perfect nonetheless.³⁰

Support from Early Christianity

We have already seen some of the early Christian and Jewish literature that supports various LDS aspects of the fall, but I thought it would be beneficial to mention further evidences that have been published by Barry Bickmore.³¹ Bickmore explains how some early Church Fathers held a position similar to the LDS:

The writings of several early Christian writers agree with the Prophet that the Fall was "fortunate." Clement of Alexandria exclaimed: "O mystic wonder! The Lord was laid low, and man rose up; and he that fell from Paradise receives as the reward of obedience something greater [than Paradise]-namely, heaven itself.³²

Referring to the fall, Irenaeus wrote:

'Thine own apostasy shall heal thee;' God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations, that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God."³³

Certain Jewish Christian documents, especially the Clement Homilies,³⁴ went even further. In the Homilies, Peter stated that Adam was ignorant of nothing,³⁵ "neither was Adam a transgressor."³⁶ But while Willis Barnstone pegs this as a major theme of Gnostic Christianity, and we have shown it to have been present in early Catholic and Jewish Christianity [for details, see Barry Bickmore's book, The Restoration of the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity] later Christian mystics such as Pseudo-Dionysius (sixth century) claimed that since partaking of the tree of knowledge was what got Adam and Eve into trouble in the first place, the true Christian should actually strive for ignorance!³⁷

Conclusion

Finally, McKeever and Johnson sum up this issue with what they believe to be conflicting aspects of both the LDS and "Christian" positions. They tell us that according to Mormonism, "Satan told the truth in the Garden of Eden" while according to Christainity, "Satan deceived Adam and Eve." In truth, Latter-day Saints believe that Satan both lied and told the truth. It has already been demonstrated how the account in Genesis details the evidence for both the lie and the truth which was verified by God. In essence, the successful satanic method of mixing truth with falsehood has escaped our authors, while they unwittingly apply this very same tactic in their summation. They tell partial truth (The LDS believe Satan told the truth) while suggesting a falsehood for comparison (The LDS do not believe Adam and Eve were deceived).

This fallacious presentation of the false dilemma³⁸ continues when they assert that Mormonism teaches that the disobedience in the Garden was necessary, while Christainity believes "Adam and Eve had the choice to obey or disobey God's commands." Again, how does the alleged "Christian" perspective conflict with the LDS perspective mentioned by our authors? Latter-day Saints believe both!

In the end, the chapter on the fall of Adam was little more than a misrepresentation of both "Christainity" and Mormonism. I will conclude this review without erroneous comparisons of what Mormonism teaches, as opposed to McKeever's Christainity. Instead, I will elaborate in the table below the clear implications between what actually did take place in the Garden and what McKeever and Johnson quite possibly believe should have occurred.

Endnotes

¹ Soteriology is the theological doctrine of salvation as effected by Jesus.

² An appeal to emotion is a most useful measure when addressing the typical counter-cult Christian.

³ B.H. Roberts, Seventy's Course in Theology (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1907-1912), 4:157-158.

⁴ Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001), 74.

⁵ 1 Peter 1:6-7. See also 1 Corinthians 10:13.

⁶ Genesis 1:28: "God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."

⁷ 2 Nephi 2:22-23.

⁸ Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (Vancouver: Vintage Books, 1989), 27.

⁹ Clement, Stromata 3, 102.

¹⁰ Ibid., 3, 94, 103.

¹¹ Revelation 13:8; 1 Peter 1:19, 20; 2 Timothy 1:8-10.

¹² Brigham Young, "Turning Out the Water of the Weber, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by J.V. Long 10-13 June 1864, Vol. 10 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1865), 312.

¹³ McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 74.

¹⁴ Apocalypse of Moses 28:3, as cited in Stephen D. Ricks, "Adam's Fall in the Book of Mormon," Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 599.

¹⁵ Revelation 2:7.

¹⁶ McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 74-75.

¹⁷ I can only attribute the authors' choice to waste so much space and ignore the meat of this issue as an appeal to straw man tactics-attempting to refute one's opponent's proposition by attacking the misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

¹⁸ A "red herring" means attempting to support one proposition by arguing for a different one entirely, or dodging the main argument by going off on a tangent.

¹⁹ See the entire Book of Job.

²⁰ Ricks, "Adam's Fall in the Book of Mormon," 599. Compare also Ben Sira 49:16.

²¹ Ibid., see also Ben Sira 10:1-2.

²² Ibid., see also Jubilees 3:26-31; 19:23-25; 22:11-12.

²³ Just like all felonies reach the level of misdemeanors, but all misdemeanors are not felonies.

²⁴ James 4:17.

²⁵ Other scriptures would include Job 13:23, Exodus 34:7, Leviticus 16:16;21, Psalms 32:1, Ezekiel 33:10, and Micah 3:8.

²⁶ Genesis 4:7.

²⁷ John Wesley, Sermon 76 on Perfection 2:9.

²⁸ John Wesley, Sermon 76 on Perfection 3:9.

²⁹ Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Fall of Adam: Status of Adam Before the Fall," Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, edited by Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), 107.

³⁰ Matthew 5:48.

³¹ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/EC.html

³² Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 11, in ANF 2:203, brackets in original. As cited in Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church, 170

³³ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:37, in ANF 1:521, as cited in Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church, 170: "Similarly, Origen taught that God is able to use the presence of evil to our advantage."

³⁴ New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 2, edited by Hennecke and Schneemelcher (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1964), 107.

³⁵ Clementine Homilies 3:28 in ANF 8:241, as cited in Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church, 170.

³⁶ Ibid., 2:52, in ANF 8:238. As cited in Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church, 170

³⁷ Willis Barnstone, "Introduction to The Mystical Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius," The Other Bible, edited by Willis Barnstone, (San Francisco: Harper, 1984), 719.

³⁸ A false dilemma exists when a limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more.

Return to Mormonism 201 Overview

FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

If you like what FAIR does and you agree with our mission, we invite you to support FAIR in any way you are able. You can make a donation, or visit our Membership page for additional support ideas. FAIR only succeeds through the efforts of our gracious volunteers.

Welcome | Topical Guide | FAIR Publications | Join & Support FAIR | Message Boards
FAIR LDS Bookstore | News | FAIR Links | Contact FAIR | Home

Last Updated June 12, 2006
Copyright © 2007 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research. All Rights Reserved.
No portion of this site may be reproduced on any other Web site or in any other print publication
without the express written consent of FAIR. You may freely link to this information, however, or you
may print out copies to give to others, provided this copyright notice is included in your printout.

You can send comments/suggestions using our contact page.